Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2008 September 13

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

September 13

Malicious Page?

When I click on the link for this page:

Sabre (computer system)

a file tries to be downloaded to my computer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.141.60 (talk) 06:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I also have had that download prompt from time to time on other pages. I very much doubt there's anything wrong with the page, and I find that, trying again later, there's no problem. It's maybe a browser problem, though I only experience this on Wikipedia.--92.41.242.174 (talk) 06:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Is the name of the file index.php, and are you running Microsoft Internet Explorer? The Help desk has received some previous reports of a problem in which MSIE prompts to save a copy of index.php: Search Help desk for: index.php. One instance was:

• Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2008 March 3#clicking on edit-this-page brings up index.php as a save-file option

but that may not be the same problem you are seeing, because the previous user was clicking an edit link. You could also see Wikipedia:Browser notes. --Teratornis (talk) 07:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I use FF 3 and no file tries to be downloaded. :S

Cheers mate!

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 07:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Martin John Callanan

Why was the article Martin John Callanan deleted? None of the admins explained this in terms that made sense. Artlondon (talk) 10:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see [1] it was deleted by the admin due to a deletion review which was enforced. Terra (talk) 10:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

it is just bureaucratic jibber jabber Artlondon (talk) 10:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, in simple terms, the article has been through three discussions about whether it belongs on Wikipedia. Two of those were AfDs ("Articles for Deletion" discussions) and the third was a DRV (deletion review). I see that you participated in the latter two. In each case, the decision was that Mr Callanan is not notable enough to be mentioned in a general encyclopedia. There are frequent mentions in those discussions of our policies on the question of who is notable enough and who isn't (such as WP:N and WP:BIO). The main question was whether the sources given in the articles were adequate to demonstrate his notability, and the conclusion was that they are not. Policies on sourcing can be read at WP:V and WP:RS. It is unlikely that the page will be restored to Wikipedia, having been through those discussions. If you re-post it, it will be speedy-deleted.

The important question to ask is why you consider it important that this page should be here. Nobody likes having their work removed from Wikipedia, although that happens, quite literally, thousands of times a day. However if you have some vested interest in the article remaining, you should check out the policy at WP:COI also.

Another point to consider is that one of the administrators offered to "userfy" the page for you: that is to say, to put a copy onto a sub-page of your own user page. You could work on it, there, and when you feel it is good enough to satisfy our standards you could request (at DRV, again) that it be reconsidered for inclusion. AndyJones (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion is a process under which articles can be nominated for deletion. After a nomination is created for the article and a link to the deletion is placed in the article, the debate stays open typically for 5 days or more, after which an administrator decides what the consensus was at the debate, i.e., whether the article should be kept, deleted, merged into another or something else. This article was first nominated for deletion back in June 2006. The debate is here. At that debate it was felt that the subject was insufficiently notable and the article was basically self-promotional advertising. The debate was closed as delete, and the article was accordingly deleted.

When an article is deleted after debate and is recreated, it can be immediately deleted (that is, without debate) under a different deletion process, called speedy deletion. Specifically, there is a criterion denominated section G4, which allows this. However, that criterion only applies if the newly created article is substantially similar to the previously deleted version and does not address the basis for deletion. This article was recreated and deleted through that process.

Thereafter, it was recreated at a version that was not identical to the prior version so instead of being speedily deleted, it was nominated a second time for deletion. The second nomination is here. The argument there was that the subject once again did not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Specifically, please see Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people) (more on this later). The debate was thereafter closed by an administrator marked for deletion again, and this was done.

When someone believes that a deletion debate was closed improperly in some way, they can ask for review of the debate. This is done at Wikipedia:Deletion review. The debate there is whether the close of the deletion discussion should be endorsed, overturned, whether re-creation should be allowed and so on. In other words, it is not another deletion debate per se, but a discussion of whether the closing of the prior deletion was proper. A user nominated this articles' deletion for review here on the stated basis that they thought the debate was too meager and the closing of the deletion debate as delete was the wrong call as notability was established in the article.

Note that "notability", as that word is used on Wikipedia, has its touchstone that the subject of an article be the subject of significant treatment in reliable, secondary, independent sources (that is reputable secondary sources, that are unrelated to the subject). Many of the opinions at the deletion review were that the subject did indeed fail this standard. Though the article was sourced, the sources were not reliable, secondary and independent. The deletion review was closed with the deletion endorsed.

Does that help clarify matters?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

And see Wikipedia:Why was my article deleted?. I agree that the deletion review consists of what will be for the vast majority of people "bureaucratic jibber jabber". People who participate in deletion reviews repeatedly discuss a set of terms and concepts peculiar to what they do. As with every group of people who participate in a specialized activity, over time they develop their own jargon, which can start to become a cant or cryptolect. The people who delete articles are working for free, but even if they were getting paid they would still have the natural human tendency to economize their effort when they do the same thing over and over. Part of economizing effort is learning a specialized language to abbreviate one's communication. Every group of practitioners in every field of organized activity does something like this - everyone from dentists to soldiers to clergymen has their own language for talking to their peers that won't make much sense to outsiders. However, Wikipedia differs from the real world in that everything on Wikipedia is transparent. There are no "inside" discussions. This is good in that it allows anyone to figure out what is going on, but it is bad in that to figure out what is going on, a person has to learn the jargon. This points out the need for every experienced Wikipedian to write in a way that will be understandable to anyone, not just the limited number of people one is aware of at the moment. One simple yet effective way we can provide clues on Wikipedia is by linking all our Wikipedia jargon terms to pages that explain them. However, many Wikipedians don't do that, so if you want to decode all the bureaucratic jibber jabber, you'll have to get good at finding the pages that explain it. This is an essential step in learning Wikipedia. Realize that on Wikipedia, the only thing that matters when it comes to getting what you want is how much you know about how Wikipedia works. The more you know about how Wikipedia works, the easier it will be for you to have fun and be productive while editing here. Conversely, if you don't know much about how Wikipedia works, you will spend a lot of time in disputes with other editors - some of whom may actually be wrong now and then, but if you don't know much about Wikipedia you won't be able to prove they are wrong. It's like going to war; the more a soldier knows about soldiering, the more likely the soldier is to live. Mistakes in soldiering tend to be fatal, but on Wikipedia, the only harm is (possibly) emotional, so instead of requiring everyone to go through basic training (which we don't have the money to pay for anyway), people have to learn here by trial and error. As with any do it yourself system, what you get from Wikipedia reflects the effort you put into learning it. --Teratornis (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Length of route 95 in South Carolina

How many miles does 95 run in the state of south carolina —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.99.169 (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried the miscellaneous section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there; this help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. For your convenience, here is the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Its easier to just look it up so Interstate_95#Florida_to_South_Carolina says 198.75 miles. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's 198.76 mi. :) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Relisting an Afd

I found this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fratire (2nd nomination) floating around in limbo. It appeared the nominator didn't quite set it up right, so I've tried to fix the template. However, since it was originally made back in August, it should also be relisted. I couldn't find any "how to" info on relisting, so I'm assuming it's an admin only job. Help? — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Where did you look for information on this? By telling the Help desk where you looked, you will enable volunteers who don't immediately know the answer to avoid suggesting that you look in one of the standard locations (such as WP:EIW#Delete) that you may have already checked. The standard places to check:

• Search the Help desk archives with Google
• The Editor's index (specifically, WP:EIW#Delete)

--Teratornis (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I've relisted it. The basic procedure for relisting is to slap on a {{relist}} template, to transclude it to the current day and to remove it from transclusion to the earlier day. Instructions are at Wikipedia:Deletion process. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I see where the procedure is found now. I was looking all over the WP:Afd page for the answer, in particular WP:AFDHOWTO. Unfortunately, I didn't notice that link in the second sentence of the page. Perhaps a more clearly marked direction somewhere on that page would be useful; then again, I might be the only simpleton on WP. Thanks again for your help. — CactusWriter | ^needles 17:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

HOW TO MAKE AN ARTICLE

HOW DO YOU MAKE A PAGE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olliesherlock (talk • contribs) 20:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see Your first article.

1. Ensure that you have an account and you are logged in. If you don't have an account, create one
2. Make sure the subject is notable enough to have their own article
3. Find references
4. Make sure no article on the subject exists under a different title by typing the subject into the search box to the left (←) and clicking 'Search'
5. Type the page name in the search box to the left (←) and click 'Go'
6. Click 'Create this page'
7. Create the article, including all your references, making sure you adhere to the Manual of Style and our article layout guidelines
8. Be aware that Wikipedia deletes thousands of new articles for failing to adhere to our policies and guidelines. New articles by new users are at extra risk of deletion, due to new users' unfamiliarity with our rules. Consider gaining experience by editing existing articles before attempting to create new ones LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 20:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Modifying infoboxes

Can anyone provide either pointers to documentation, or a newbie-guide to infobox hacking?

Template:Infobox Country is supposed to have a field flag_width with controls the size of the country's flag relative to the country's coat of arms (or equivalent symbol). As far as I can see, this parameter doesn't exist in the infobox's source. I'd be reasonably comfortable modifying the source (there are examples of conditionals elsewhere in the source I can steal from), but I don't know where to begin with actually using and testing infoboxes. I've had a browse for newbie guides, but can't find anything basic.

For context, I'm wanting to display Scotland's flag next to an equal sized Royal Standard of Scotland.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  23:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

If I'm understanding you right, then you probably want to be using {{Flagicon}} as the template for the flag. It includes a field for modifying the image size of the flag. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

That's what I get for assuming I knew which template you were linking to and not checking it. I see what you mean now. To modify the template, you can create a copy in your own namespace, such as User:This_flag_once_was_red/sandbox, then make tests on that. Once you are certain you have the needed code, add {{Editprotected}} to the talk page of the original template with details of the specific change(s) being requested. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries, though I was (even more) confused for a minute there! That makes sense, I'll give it a go. Thanks for your help.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  23:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

flag_width was removed in [2]. I don't know why. Note for others: The mention of flag_width in the documentation of {{Infobox Country}} becomes visible when "show" is clicked at "Parameters for Country or territory". PrimeHunter (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Now why didn't it occur to me to look for that?! I've just hacked around with the template to reinstate it - I've asked on Template talk:Infobox Country#Flag_width for my change to be applied; I'll follow it up with the diff - it probably makes more sense to reinstate the original (presumably tested) code instead of my first-ever-try hack.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  00:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Fan made drawings: suitable for Wikipedia?

Recently I removed a fan made drawing in the article on Charlie Sheen, which I thought was a bit inappropriate for an encylopedic article. The user who added it restored it later, so I thought to myself, what are the guidelines there? For all I know I could be wrong there. I tried to find some answers (WP:BIO, WP:PICTURE, WP:IMAGE), but couldn't find any. Any thoughts? --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 23:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a bit about such images at WP:IUP#User-created images. The main issue I see with the image used in the Charlie Sheen article is that the artists signature is on the image itself, and the infobox shows the artist credits below the image in the article - both should be removed. If the signature in the image cannot be removed, then it's simply not an appropriate image for Wikipedia's use. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Barek. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 10:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)